Would it have been better if Warlock and Sorcerer (and Cleric?) were one class?

[Diovid]

Do you think it would have been better if there was a single caster class who gained power from powerful entities, whether as ancestor, a being that you worship, a being one makes a deal with, a being whose power you steal or whatever the case may be.

The way I envision such a class would be that it would have a subclass, for example simply called "Dragon" and if you choose that neither the fluff nor the crunch implies the type of relationship you have to dragons. Maybe you have a draconic bloodline, maybe you made a deal with a dragon, maybe you worship Tiamat. In all cases you gain the same abilities and thematically appropriate spells.

This way WotC would not have to make multiple sub classes for a single type of powerful being or worse, have a type of powerful available as a subclass for one class but not for another.

What are you thoughts on this? Or is there really enough reason to separate classes based around powerful beings?

Of course it's all very hypothetical, though there is always a next edition.

[RogueJK]

I could maybe see it with Warlock and Sorcerer, although that would require watering down the quite noticeable mechanical differences between the two classes. But I think the role of a Cleric is too distinct from a Warlock/Sorcerer. Sorcerer/Warlock implies a more casual/innate relationship with the source of their power. Whereas Clerics are dedicated and trained "holy people", representatives of the church who study their god and others and are trained in arms/armor before being sent out into the world as representatives of their faith.

It seems like in some prior editions, as well as in Pathfinder, there were some "in-between" classes that represented people with a more casual/innate relationship with their God in order to channel their divine source of power, often involving spontaneous spellcasting. Somewhat similar to 5E's Divine Soul Sorcerer, or perhaps to a Celestial Warlock. That's different from a traditional Cleric.

[Valmark]

Personally I would mind that. To me they are very different classes fluff-wise, seeing them together would devalue them imo.

Of course it depends on how it's done.

Mechanically they are different enough to make them different classes, like they are now.

[Mercurias]

They all come at it from a different angle, and they’re also vastly mechanically different. I like where they are.

Clerics are chosen and gifted their magics by a divine being or otherworldly entity. Sometimes there is worship, but even WOTC has said that a god can choose a cleric to gift who isn’t even a worshipper...And a god could also choose to take it away at any time.

Warlocks are all about the bargain. The power is yours once given and can’t be taken away unless you break the agreement.

Sorcerers are people who are fundamentally altered by a brush with something otherworldly or divine. It’s part of them, not something that can be taken away.

[Diovid]

They all come at it from a different angle, and they’re also vastly mechanically different. I like where they are.

Clerics are chosen and gifted their magics by a divine being or otherworldly entity. Sometimes there is worship, but even WOTC has said that a god can choose a cleric to gift who isn’t even a worshipper...And a god could also choose to take it away at any time.

Warlocks are all about the bargain. The power is yours once given and can’t be taken away unless you break the agreement.

Sorcerers are people who are fundamentally altered by a brush with something otherworldly or divine. It’s part of them, not something that can be taken away.

I understand that. But my point was that all of what you're saying is fluff, not mechanics. I get that they are different mechanically as they are made now but they could've been made as a single class with less specific fluff.

[Naanomi]

I could imagine a well-made system with branching paths... say... you pick your base at level 1, you get your \class\ at 3, and your \subclass\ at 5... for example:

Warrior -> Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, or Paladin
Arcanist -> Artificer, Sorcerer, Wizard
Devotee -> Cleric, Druid, Warlock
Expert -> Bard, Ranger, Rogue

It would be very serviceable and help group classes conceptually (and perhaps mechanically)... but I don''t think that needed to be 5e, nor do I think 5e would be improved trying to change into such a schema now

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally I would mind that. To me they are very different classes fluff-wise, seeing them together would devalue them imo.

Of course it depends on how it's done.

Mechanically they are different enough to make them different classes, like they are now.

Right. Fluff (although I hate that term)? Totally different in meaningful ways.

Mechanics? Completely different.

Edit: when people are reading for the first time, " "fluff" (rather the class fiction) is what matters. I'd say that I'd prefer if the broad, non specific classes like fighter (especially) and wizard for broken up into more clearly different classes rather than try to squish together very different ones and so lose all that interesting stuff.

[OldTrees1]

Don't forget important mechanical innovations too:

1) Warlocks are meant to be at-will casters (although 5E nerfed them to short rest casters)
2) The Divine and Arcane spell lists have very little overlap. So if Cleric and Sorcerer were one class, then their entire spell list would be from the subclass. Not a great design.

[Mercurias]

I understand that. But my point was that all of what you're saying is fluff, not mechanics. I get that they are different mechanically as they are made now but they could've been made as a single class with less specific fluff.

Alright, so let's break down the mechanics:

Hit Dice
-Warlock: D6
-Sorcerer: D6
-Cleric: D8

Casting Stat:
-Warlock: Charisma
-Sorcerer: Charisma
-Cleric: Wisdom

Weapon Proficiencies
-Warlock: Simple Weapons (Hexblade being the exception)
-Sorcerer: Daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, light crossbows
-Cleric: Simple Weapons (multiple domains give martial weapon proficiency).

Armor Proficiencies
-Warlock: Light Armor (Hexblade gets Medium Armor and Shields)
-Sorcerer: None
-Cleric: Medium Armor, Shields (multiple domains grant heavy armor proficiency).

Save Proficiencies
-Warlock: Wisdom, Charisma
-Sorcerer: Constitution, Charisma
-Cleric: Wisdom, Charisma

Starting Skills
-Warlock: Arcana, Deception, History, Intimidation, Investigation, Nature, and Religion.
-Sorcerer: Arcana, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Persuasion, and Religion.
-Cleric: History, Insight, Medicine, Persuasion, and Religion.

Class Features
-Too Different to go into.

Spell List
-Too different to go into.

Spell Slot Recovery
-Warlock: Short Rest
-Sorcerer: Long Rest (replenish lower level slots from Sorcery Points).
-Cleric: Long Rest only.

Choose Spells
-Warlock: On level-up (pick new spells and trade in one old spell).
-Sorcerer: On level-up (pick new spells and trade in one old spell).
-Cleric: Can swap out entire spell list at the end of a long rest, barring Cantrips and domain spells.

Ritual Magic
-Warlock: Pact of the Tome Only (can learn any ritual spell).
-Sorcerer: None.
-Cleric: Prepared spells only.

And that only barely touches the differences in the way they approach the game, what they contribute to the party in various scenarios, different specializations between Domains/Patrons/Bloodlines, etc.

They are VERY DIFFERENT.

[Tanarii]

I'd rather change Warlocks to be Int-based caster class.

Or just eliminate Sorcerers and make Metamagic and Wildmagic two different Wizard classes.

Or both. Leaving Bard as the only Cha caster would suit me just fine. And not having a class with a background of innate magic would also suit me fine.

[Anymage]

Warlocks are very mechanically distinct, and I can see a lot of advantage to that. (On top of everything else, short rest recovery and an infinitely spammable spell that deals competitive damage makes for a much easier magic type character.) Tying that into the baseline D&D casting scale might make make multiclassing easier, but loses a mechanically distinct playstyle.

If anything, you already have bunches of classes that feel very similar to each other, and are only distinct due to history. If you want to try a simplified D&D homebrew with just warrior/wizard/priest/rogue, or even just warrior/spellcaster/expert, you can do that. I have a feeling that your average player is more comfortable with all the elements staying as they are.

[Mitchellnotes]

Mechanically, i wish there was at least one other class that used the pact magic progression either as a wisdom or int based caster. Thematically and mechanically druid might have been a decent choice to be a "short rest based caster," though to switch to it would take a bit of a redesign to get scaling to work right (i wouldnt take druids as is and just dump pact magic based casting on them). Additionally, while there are some multiclass druids, i dont think they are nearly as common to multiclass as other classes.

I love the warlock class, but always get frustrated when playing them. It always seems that there is a compromise being constantly made between power and versatility that other classes dont have to make. Because they have a pact, a patron, spells, and invocations, none of those items on their own can be too powerful without imbalancing the whole thing.

This most closely hit home with the summons in tasha's release. They reeaally want to be used from an even spell level slot, but locks cap at 5. Even though warlocks were given a lot of them, they can't make phenomenal use of them because of that limitation. I honestly believe that summon fiend was made 6th level to throw a thematic summon to warlocks while letting them use it at 6th level (at the cost of it being their 6th level mystic arcanum choice)

I'd be tempted to play a sorc/lock hybrid (or wiz/lock) using a lock spell list on a sorc or wizard chassis to see how it played (but i feel like i'd miss the other features like pact, snd then invocations...ughhh)

[Valmark]

I'd be tempted to play a sorc/lock hybrid (or wiz/lock) using a lock spell list on a sorc or wizard chassis to see how it played (but i feel like i'd miss the other features like pact, snd then invocations...ughhh)

It's not the same thing, but you could try taking the Sidekick caster (the UA version, not the disappointing mess that made it on Tasha) using the Warlock's spell list.
It would still be Charisma-based though.

[Hael]

IMo the Sorcerer and warlock classes are both poorly designed. Not only are they mechanically suspect, they don’t really make sense.

Like why should the Sorcerer get metamagic.... font makes sense, but meta magic seems like a random addon that they took away from the wizard so as not to overpower them more and gave instead to the Sorcerer so as not to be too weak.

The sorcerer balance was better in Pathfinder. There you had delayed progression and much fewer spells known relative to a wizard, but you could cast more total spells per day and weren’t limited by memorization. Bloodlines were flavorful and interesting as well.

In 5e they should have made the sorcerer the cantrip master. Spells like EB should have always been sorcerers. They should have had abilities that enhance cantrips and their spell choice should have been limited, but with far more slots to play with and that regenerate with short rests. You could easily imagine a few concentration limit breaking mechanisms as well.

Warlocks are more 5es build your own class. I like invocations for instance. But that should have been expanded. Like there should have been more ways to get martial abilities by trading off spell progression, or vice versa. Everything needs to come with a cost.. so while you might be able to heal, summon or blast, they are all weaker than their primary class.

[Naanomi]

IMo the Sorcerer and warlock classes are both poorly designed. Not only are they mechanically suspect, they don’t really make sense.

Like why should the Sorcerer get metamagic.... font makes sense, but meta magic seems like a random addon that they took away from the wizard so as not to overpower them more and gave instead to the Sorcerer so as not to be too weak.
I like Metamagic on sorcerers, but they should have changed the name. Metamagic sounds technical... but the idea that Wizards learn spells 'by the book' and cast them the same way every time, whereas sorcerers are more instinctual and can twist things around on the fly seems to fit the flavor

[Morty]

It would be a valid way to do it. Not the best or only, but definitely better than the current situation.

[Mitchellnotes]

Mechanically, i wish there was at least one other class that used the pact magic progression either as a wisdom or int based caster. Thematically and mechanically druid might have been a decent choice to be a "short rest based caster," though to switch to it would take a bit of a redesign to get scaling to work right (i wouldnt take druids as is and just dump pact magic based casting on them). Additionally, while there are some multiclass druids, i dont think they are nearly as common to multiclass as other classes.

Thinking about this a bit more, a lot of druid subclasses are already going into the space of "wildshape replacement." Upping these a bit could provide the space to shift druid casting to pact magic style without losing steam with less oveeall slots.

Land druid (probably tho most caster focused) could trade wildshapes for slots, and be givin +wis to damage cantrips.

Moon is probably ok, they probably feel the loss of spell slots the least

Shepard could trade wildshapes for concentration free summon animals (the new tasha's one, like the fey wanderer ability) or for additional uses of their totems). The summon feeds into the minionmancy and gives them a summon even if using concentration on something else

Wildfire, spores, and stars could just have their current replacements tuned up a little more

Which leaves dreams. Not sure what would be most beneficial there...maybe something support oriented like a party buff?

[Sorinth]

For Warlock/Sorceror it could make sense but not Cleric. Besides the vastly different role that most clerics occupy, the completely different spell list, the biggest loss would be the variety of subclasses we get from all the different cleric domains (Many of which don't fit into a Warlock/Sorceror theme).

But I don't really see what the desired upside is in your proposal.

[Sorinth]

IMo the Sorcerer and warlock classes are both poorly designed. Not only are they mechanically suspect, they don’t really make sense.

Like why should the Sorcerer get metamagic.... font makes sense, but meta magic seems like a random addon that they took away from the wizard so as not to overpower them more and gave instead to the Sorcerer so as not to be too weak.

The sorcerer balance was better in Pathfinder. There you had delayed progression and much fewer spells known relative to a wizard, but you could cast more total spells per day and weren’t limited by memorization. Bloodlines were flavorful and interesting as well.

In 5e they should have made the sorcerer the cantrip master. Spells like EB should have always been sorcerers. They should have had abilities that enhance cantrips and their spell choice should have been limited, but with far more slots to play with and that regenerate with short rests. You could easily imagine a few concentration limit breaking mechanisms as well.

Warlocks are more 5es build your own class. I like invocations for instance. But that should have been expanded. Like there should have been more ways to get martial abilities by trading off spell progression, or vice versa. Everything needs to come with a cost.. so while you might be able to heal, summon or blast, they are all weaker than their primary class.

Some of these complaints seems strange to me. Metamagic makes a lot of sense for a Sorcerer since being able to manipulate spells on the fly is very in theme for a caster who has that natural/instinctive control of magic.

They already have the largest number of cantrips known so they are already the cantrip master. The desire to have add-ons to their cantrips similar to the Warlock while also increasing the number of leveled spells they can cast are at odds with each other. Levelled spells are always a more powerful option then using cantrips. So a Sorcerer with even more slots like you suggest would have even less reason to use cantrips then they currently do even if they were boosted like EB.

Now I'm not saying that Warlock/Sorcerer/Wizard are well balanced against each other because they aren't, but your complaints seem a bit all over the places. Not too mention when talking balance you have to balance against martials so boosting Sorceror to be stronger just further breaks the balance between casters and martials.

Personally I think the other spellcasters should actually follow the Warlock template of having a small number of high powered spells and a bunch of at will magic abilities (Either spells or addons to spells).

[arnin77]

Ya I’m not sure what the benefit would be either. It would be like saying Druid should be a cleric subclass (which I think it started out as) or Bard should just be a Rogue (started out as a rogue subclass?). They have all developed into much more than what they started as and the sorcerer and warlock are extremely different thematically from each other and from Wizard.

D&D isn’t just about mechanics - it’s about themes and role playing too.

In fact, having Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock as all different classes really creates a great dynamic and rivalry between the three that I thoroughly enjoy.

[JackPhoenix]

Sorcerer can stay, but they shouldn't have been standard spellcasters. Casting spells like everyone else makes little sense when you're drawing on innate powers. Metamagic is a step in the right direction, but not far enough: they should've a list of basic effects they can cause, and ability to modify those effects in various ways, with additional focus on at-will effects.

Warlock and cleric should be merged, using warlock chassis. Short rest, auto-levelling spell slots make much more sense for the power drawn from a deity than standard slots. And warlock offers more moving parts between the patron, pact and invocations, which would lead to different clerics/warlocks doing different things.

[Witty Username]

At the moment sorcerer is caught in a odd place between warlock and wizard. dividing and subsuming the sorcerer under those two would be possible. Essentially warlock would replace the sorcerer and wizard would gain an innate magic arcane tradition in this model. Is this the correct decision? It depends on your players, some people really like sorcerer despite the strangeness with wizard and a deliberate separation of the wizard and sorcerer with emphasis on the sorcerer becoming more unique may go over better.
I guess it depends on if you see sorcerer as its own thing or if it is more a "champion" wizard.

As for cleric, I am not sure how strongly cleric is tied up in this, unless you are referring to fluff similarity with the warlock. I wouldn't worry about it, contract vs devotion is a fair enough division and how it is translated into mechanics is interesting.

Sure my angle is that I am no longer convinced that departing from the four (Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief.) was a good idea. But what we have now doesn't necessitate a paradigm shift.

[Kane0]

I would say no. Sorc needed a touch more time in the oven, being one of the last classes in the playest before release.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd rather change Warlocks to be Int-based caster class.
Me too.

Or just eliminate Sorcerers and make Metamagic and Wildmagic two different Wizard classes.
That also.

Or both. Leaving Bard as the only Cha caster would suit me just fine. And not having a class with a background of innate magic would also suit me fine.
Make bard an INT caster, as it was originally (see AD&D 1e, basically a magic user variation caster). We can live without Cha casters, though you can, if you like, try to sell me on the Paladin as the only Charisma caster. I can probably get on board that train.

[Hael]

They already have the largest number of cantrips known so they are already the cantrip master. The desire to have add-ons to their cantrips similar to the Warlock while also increasing the number of leveled spells they can cast are at odds with each other. Levelled spells are always a more powerful option then using cantrips. So a Sorcerer with even more slots like you suggest would have even less reason to use cantrips then they currently do even if they were boosted like EB.
.

I don’t agree. They are not the cantrip masters. Warlocks have a better cantrip. Clerics and druids get a better cantrip. Other subclasses get +stat to their cantrips etc. If anything sorcerers need to trade versatility for a smaller amount of super powered cantrips. They should be the ones that should get EB+AB+RB type power. Or Guidance with die that increase.

Font already achieves what I was talking about. That they can cast more eg fireballs than any other class. If anything I just prefer slightly more sorcerer points (or rather sorcerer points per short rest) than what they get now as well as delayed progression and even fewer spell choices. Again a sorlock feels much more right to me than the sorcerer does.

As far as meta magic goes. Some of it is ok.. like subtle. I feel like sorcerers should get subtle automatically without V, C, M costs. But twin, heighten, empower and quicken feel very wizardly to me.

If you’ve played Pathfinder. I’m shooting for something between a kineticist and a sorcerer. You want some restricted spell choice, but you want innate abilities that follow a subclass theme.

[Sorinth]

I don’t agree. They are not the cantrip masters. Warlocks have a better cantrip. Clerics and druids get a better cantrip. Other subclasses get +stat to their cantrips etc. If anything sorcerers need to trade versatility for a smaller amount of super powered cantrips. They should be the ones that should get EB+AB+RB type power. Or Guidance with die that increase.

Font already achieves what I was talking about. That they can cast more eg fireballs than any other class. If anything I just prefer slightly more sorcerer points (or rather sorcerer points per short rest) than what they get now as well as delayed progression and even fewer spell choices. Again a sorlock feels much more right to me than the sorcerer does.

As far as meta magic goes. Some of it is ok.. like subtle. I feel like sorcerers should get subtle automatically without V, C, M costs. But twin, heighten, empower and quicken feel very wizardly to me.

If you’ve played Pathfinder. I’m shooting for something between a kineticist and a sorcerer. You want some restricted spell choice, but you want innate abilities that follow a subclass theme.

Well first we should differentiate between the cantrip itself and abilities that power them up. Because the reason Warlock is the king of damage cantrips is because of the abilities that add additional stuff to Eldritch Blast. And you seem to be ignoring that the sorcerer does get abilities to boost their cantrips, except their abilities aren't limited to cantrips. Like you complain about not getting +stat to damage and yet Draconic sorcerer actually does get that it's just not limited to cantrips only, just like all sorcerers can use meta magic to boost the power of their cantrips. Just because they aren't limited to boosting cantrips doesn't mean they can't lay down some super charged cantrips.

And it seems strange to say certain metamagics are too wizardly but then also want Guidance on the Sorcerer list. I mean how is Guidance on theme for Sorcerer? And if you really want it there's already a subclass with access to it.

But like I said the things you want are at odds with each other. If they get lots of spell slots then they aren't going to use their cantrips even if those cantrips were powered up because levelled spells are simply better. That's the whole reason Warlock gets those power boosts to EB, because they aren't able to throw down leveled spells round after round, if warlocks had normal spell slots and everything else was the same then most wouldn't even take invocations like agonizing blast (Or more likely take it at low levels and then drop it later on).

[Tanarii]

Me too.

That also.

Make bard an INT caster, as it was originally (see AD&D 1e, basically a magic user variation caster). We can live without Cha casters, though you can, if you like, try to sell me on the Paladin as the only Charisma caster. I can probably get on board that train.Bards in AD&D got some Druid spells (and all Druid powers). It's not clear if (as Druids) they get bonus spells as a for high Wisdom or not. Regardless, in 5e being a Cha caster definitely fits Bards IMO.

I kinda zoned out of Paladins being Cha half-casters. :smallredface: Revised: Bards and Paladins being the only Cha casters.

[SteadyAim]

{Scrubbed}

[patchyman]

I understand that. But my point was that all of what you're saying is fluff, not mechanics. I get that they are different mechanically as they are made now but they could've been made as a single class with less specific fluff.

But the mechanics of the 3 classes are also extremely different.

It just seems like a weird place to get to to say “if you change both the fluff and the mechanics of these classes, you could make a single class out of them”.

I mean, it seems a lot simpler to combine paladins and clerics into a single class (with a martial discipline and a caster discipline), than to combine such different classes.

[Salmon343]

I can see where people are coming from when they suggest this - they're both spellcasting classes with a charisma casting stat, and a link to a particular source of power (be it dragons, fey, demons, etc.). I think there's value in them existing separately though - sorcerers represent being a magical being with a magical origin, while warlocks represent obtaining knowledge from an external source. I think if Warlocks were shifted to use intelligence it would make more thematic sense, and differentiate them a bit more - and warlocks should also double down on the invocations. Honestly, I think that warlocks next edition shouldn't necessarily learn spells - they didn't in 3.5 - and should be a class that has magical abilities and tricks that are learned but don't fall under the category of spells. This would highlight that their magic is more mysterious, ancient, and primal (eldritch, essentially), and would follow the "forbidden knowledge" theme a lot more. The learning of magical spells under a master could easily be fit under the wizard class, so that you'd have:

Wizard - casting magic through lore and study
Sorcerer - casting magic through strength of being
Bard - casting magic through the power of music and speech (onomancy would really work better here than under wizard)

Warlock - obtained knowledge and power beyond traditional spellcasting

[WaroftheCrans]

I don't think merging them is the move to make. There are enough differences both mechanically and thematically that it would not be justified.
The real issue is what happens thematically between sorcerers and warlocks: you have someone who made a pact with a dragon, or someone with fiendish blood as the source of innate powers beyond that of a tiefling. You have an aberrant mind with the source being a deal with a great old one.

A possible solution is making it so that warlocks and sorcerers can choose either ones subclasses. The biggest issue is many sorcerer subclasses use sp as a currency. I'm not sure if this is something that could be solved by using spell points and swapping the one type of sp for the other.

I don't think this is an ideal fix but it could help with the thematic issues. I don't see a straight merger helping.

[Bosh]

One thing I've been noodling about with is for a lower magic setting have ALL full casters be replaced with the alchemist class. Replace the tech with magic, make up witch or saint or whatever subclasses, nix all damaging cantrips, change up the spell list and you're good to go.

[Jerrykhor]

Isn't it the same argument for having the Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian as one class?

[Amnestic]

Isn't it the same argument for having the Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian as one class?

And ranger!

Fighter
Rage-Fighter
Holy-Fighter
Druid-Fighter

'We already made Eldritch Knight a fighter subclass, why not the rest of them?'

Turns out when you want to reduce things down you can get 3-4 classes (fightman, sneak/skillman, magicman and maybe holy magicman) as the baseline.

[Naanomi]

And ranger!

Fighter
Rage-Fighter
Holy-Fighter
Druid-Fighter

'We already made Eldritch Knight a fighter subclass, why not the rest of them?'

Turns out when you want to reduce things down you can get 3-4 classes (fightman, sneak/skillman, magicman and maybe holy magicman) as the baseline.
I see ranger as more of a rogue subclass... give ‘scout’ some druid magic and an extra attack etc

[KorvinStarmast]

I see ranger as more of a rogue subclass... give ‘scout’ some druid magic and an extra attack etc ?? Ranger grew from a Fighter sub class (D&D and AD&D) into its own class: WoTCD&D.

Rogue / Scout isn't a ranger, it's a rogue who grew up in the outdoors rather than in a settlement/port/city.

[truemane]

Turns out when you want to reduce things down you can get 3-4 classes (fightman, sneak/skillman, magicman and maybe holy magicman) as the baseline.

There's actually a rules-lite, tongue-in-cheek RPG based on this exact phenomenon. Warrior, Rogue & Mage (http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/). I recommend it, actually.

[Democratus]

"Into the Unknown" is a 5e based, OSR game that does just this. It has base classes that then divide into the other iconic classes.

The class breakdown went something like this:

Rogue --> Thief, Mountebank (bard), Ranger
Warrior --> Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
Priest --> Cleric, Druid
Magic User --> Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock


I feel it works very well. But all of this is a matter of personal opinion. :smallsmile:

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I see some comments here supporting the idea that since the mechanics are so different the classes are good as is. I'd argue the opposite; short rest characters are a pain to try to balance the adventuring day around, and sometimes there is just no way to do it that doesn't feel artificial. I'd much rather all characters got most of their resources back in roughly the same proportion of SR/LR so that (for example) an extra encounter that interrupts a short rest is similarly taxing to all characters.
Basically every adventuring day shouldn't have to look like:
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
... just for game balance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Into the Unknown" is a 5e based, OSR game that does just this. It has base classes that then divide into the other iconic classes.

The class breakdown went something like this:

Rogue --> Thief, Mountebank (bard), Ranger
Warrior --> Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
Priest --> Cleric, Druid
Magic User --> Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock


I feel it works very well. But all of this is a matter of personal opinion. :smallsmile:

But then you either have nested subclasses (ewww) or you lose all the diversity and specialization within those classes. Every bard looks the same. Every ranger is identical. Etc. Which works for an OSR-type game--characters are pretty superficial mechanically. But 5e already has enough complaints about lacking mechanical diversity.

Or you end up with a hacked-together point-buy system that dare not come out of the closet and identify as such.


I see some comments here supporting the idea that since the mechanics are so different the classes are good as is. I'd argue the opposite; short rest characters are a pain to try to balance the adventuring day around, and sometimes there is just no way to do it that doesn't feel artificial. I'd much rather all characters got most of their resources back in roughly the same proportion of SR/LR so that (for example) an extra encounter that interrupts a short rest is similarly taxing to all characters.
Basically every adventuring day shouldn't have to look like:
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
... just for game balance.

They don't. All you need is diversity and uncertainty. Balancing at the every-adventuring-day level is silly. Balance across the adventure as a whole. If some adventuring days you have no SR and some days you have 5, it all balances out. The pathologies are never taking short rests or having always-predictable one-encounter days.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

But then you either have nested subclasses (ewww) or you lose all the diversity and specialization within those classes. Every bard looks the same. Every ranger is identical. Etc. Which works for an OSR-type game--characters are pretty superficial mechanically. But 5e already has enough complaints about lacking mechanical diversity.

Or you end up with a hacked-together point-buy system that dare not come out of the closet and identify as such.



They don't. All you need is diversity and uncertainty. Balancing at the every-adventuring-day level is silly. Balance across the adventure as a whole. If some adventuring days you have no SR and some days you have 5, it all balances out. The pathologies are never taking short rests or having always-predictable one-encounter days.

You make a good point, and in fairness I did (somewhat deliberately) overstate my case. But the fact remains that in playing through a published adventure (let's just use Out of the Abyss as an example) there are going to be large sections that would represent weeks of play time where some classes are going to be at significant disadvantage compared to others. Travelling through the underdark for weeks is going to look a lot different on most days than exploring a dungeon than interacting in a city in terms of the encounter/rest mechanic.
Perhaps this isn't as much of an issue with groups that aren't as into the hex-crawl type of exploration that our group likes (and some published adventures seem to almost handwave it).
For our group the SR/LR disparity is a real mechanical issue and in some ways character defining. Our last campaign the goblin/ monk was often described as lazy as he always wanted to have a lie-down after each modest battle. The player leaned into this and made it work for that character, but that's going to get tiresome pretty quick.
I don't mind there being some variation in SR/LR recovery, but in the case of Warlock and Monk they are just too much removed from the rest for us. I'm tempted to just houserule double their pool and have them recover on a LR next time and see how it works.

[Democratus]

But then you either have nested subclasses (ewww) or you lose all the diversity and specialization within those classes. Every bard looks the same. Every ranger is identical. Etc. Which works for an OSR-type game--characters are pretty superficial mechanically. But 5e already has enough complaints about lacking mechanical diversity.

Or you end up with a hacked-together point-buy system that dare not come out of the closet and identify as such.

Every bard does look the same currently. Every ranger is identical. They have a name which evokes an identity, then they have things that help with dice rolling. The kinds of things that are helped is just set dressing.

What makes characters of the same class different is the players and the narrative.

You can have two Fighter/Champions that feel entirely different if the players portray them as such. Same with two clerics of the same god with the same domain.

I think the game/edition often catches too much flak for things that are really the responsibility of the DM and the players. :smallcool:

[Valmark]

Every bard does look the same currently. Every ranger is identical. They have a name which evokes an identity, then they have things that help with dice rolling. The kinds of things that are helped is just set dressing.

What makes characters of the same class different is the players and the narrative.

You can have two Fighter/Champions that feel entirely different if the players portray them as such. Same with two clerics of the same god with the same domain.

I think the game/edition often catches too much flak for things that are really the responsibility of the DM and the players. :smallcool:

Except that even two Lore Bard with the same stats and the same equipment are going to be very different if for example one takes Fireball and Conjure Animals as Magical Secrets while the other takes Counterspell and Aura Of Vitality.

Or a Beastmaster Ranger and... Any other kind of Ranger.

Mechanical variety can and often makes for very different characters in addition to the roleplay.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except that even two Lore Bard with the same stats and the same equipment are going to be very different if for example one takes Fireball and Conjure Animals as Magical Secrets while the other takes Counterspell and Aura Of Vitality.

Or a Beastmaster Ranger and... Any other kind of Ranger.

Mechanical variety can and often makes for very different characters in addition to the roleplay.

And with the proposed thing, you'd not even have the current subclasses. You'd have every ranger being Fighter (Ranger). No room for beast masters. Or champions. Or battle masters. And all of the "ranger" stuff would have to come from those 3-5 features. Ugh.

[Democratus]

And with the proposed thing, you'd not even have the current subclasses. You'd have every ranger being Fighter (Ranger). No room for beast masters. Or champions. Or battle masters. And all of the "ranger" stuff would have to come from those 3-5 features. Ugh.

Subclasses don't make the game better. They just make it more scattered and unfocused.

The Ranger was originally based on Aragorn, who had no beasts at all. The most famous ranger, Drizzt, has no beast companion - instead he has a magic item. The weird "kinda a thief, kinda an archer, maybe some animals" isn't a core concept, it's a disjointed mess.

Anyone could be a "beast master" if they wished. There is nothing stopping any character - a bard perhaps - from having a trained tiger as a companion. Or a wizard who was an expert in tracking in the wilderness.

"Into the Unknown" handles it pretty cleanly. There is no set list of skills, only ability checks. You have proficiency in this check for anything you do that matches your chosen backstory and class concept.

[Kane0]

Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster. Tashas has you covered!

[Tvtyrant]

Do you think it would have been better if there was a single caster class who gained power from powerful entities, whether as ancestor, a being that you worship, a being one makes a deal with, a being whose power you steal or whatever the case may be.

The way I envision such a class would be that it would have a subclass, for example simply called "Dragon" and if you choose that neither the fluff nor the crunch implies the type of relationship you have to dragons. Maybe you have a draconic bloodline, maybe you made a deal with a dragon, maybe you worship Tiamat. In all cases you gain the same abilities and thematically appropriate spells.

This way WotC would not have to make multiple sub classes for a single type of powerful being or worse, have a type of powerful available as a subclass for one class but not for another.

What are you thoughts on this? Or is there really enough reason to separate classes based around powerful beings?

Of course it's all very hypothetical, though there is always a next edition.

You can cut the line between justified classes and unjustified however you like. Barbarian and Ranger don't need to be separate, Cleric is flexible enough it could be all casting classes, etc. Classes are arbitrary.

Warlock was invented for mechanical reasons, because they wanted an at-will caster two editions ago. Same for Artificer. It survives as a legacy. Bard was the same but four editions ago. The Avenger, Warden, Warlord, Spellthief, Binder, Totemist, Incarnate, and numerous other classes failed to make the cut for not being iconic or simple enough for 5E. I don't think the game would be better or worse changing the class roster, just different.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Subclasses don't make the game better. They just make it more scattered and unfocused.

The Ranger was originally based on Aragorn, who had no beasts at all. The most famous ranger, Drizzt, has no beast companion - instead he has a magic item. The weird "kinda a thief, kinda an archer, maybe some animals" isn't a core concept, it's a disjointed mess.

Anyone could be a "beast master" if they wished. There is nothing stopping any character - a bard perhaps - from having a trained tiger as a companion. Or a wizard who was an expert in tracking in the wilderness.

"Into the Unknown" handles it pretty cleanly. There is no set list of skills, only ability checks. You have proficiency in this check for anything you do that matches your chosen backstory and class concept.

I disagree completely.

Subclasses make the game a lot better, at least if we're talking about modern D&D. They give constrained, thematic extension points. A role that kits played in 2e and prestige classes did in 3e, except better than both because they're tied in at the core instead of tacked on after-the-fact.

And as far as rangers--forget old editions and old characters. A 5e Ranger is not an Aragorn-expy. There's an ancestral tie there, but it's very very faint and mainly exists in a similarity of name at this point. Nor is it a Drizzt-clone. It's its own thing. Heritage is not destiny--things that are old are not better than things that are new (or vice versa). They all stand alone.

[Valmark]

Subclasses don't make the game better. They just make it more scattered and unfocused.

The Ranger was originally based on Aragorn, who had no beasts at all. The most famous ranger, Drizzt, has no beast companion - instead he has a magic item. The weird "kinda a thief, kinda an archer, maybe some animals" isn't a core concept, it's a disjointed mess.

Anyone could be a "beast master" if they wished. There is nothing stopping any character - a bard perhaps - from having a trained tiger as a companion. Or a wizard who was an expert in tracking in the wilderness.

"Into the Unknown" handles it pretty cleanly. There is no set list of skills, only ability checks. You have proficiency in this check for anything you do that matches your chosen backstory and class concept.
Seems to me that you dislike the ranger more then thinking that classes/subclasses divisions are better off exisisting in a reduced fashion.

I'd rather have a Ranger class with a Beastmaster subclass that is going to give a way different feel then only a Wizard skilled in Survival or a Bard with a trained pet. There's hardly anything these three have in common- and this is good! It means breadth of possibilities. Like PhoenixPyre said, you'd have to either remove many possible ideas for characters or make subclasses of subclasses, which looks way less neat then the current system.

You can cut the line between justified classes and unjustified however you like. Barbarian and Ranger don't need to be separate, Cleric is flexible enough it could be all casting classes, etc. Classes are arbitrary.

Warlock was invented for mechanical reasons, because they wanted an at-will caster two editions ago. Same for Artificer. It survives as a legacy. Bard was the same but four editions ago. The Avenger, Warden, Warlord, Spellthief, Binder, Totemist, Incarnate, and numerous other classes failed to make the cut for not being iconic or simple enough for 5E. I don't think the game would be better or worse changing the class roster, just different.

And I'm still pissed that the Binder isn't in 5e and nothing similar is in its stead.

[Millstone85]

Clerics cast spells with divine help.
Sorcerers cast spells intuitively.
Wizards cast spells methodically.
Warlocks, I am not sure how they cast spells.

I played mine as someone who could have been a wild-magic sorcerer (assuming she didn't spontaneously combust in infancy) but whose potential was altered into something more stable (yet even more sinister). I could just as well have played a student of forbidden knowledge. Or I could have played a cleric-like spellcaster, only with non-divine assistance. And while this could be seen as great freedom in character creation, to me it just feels like ill-defined class flavor.

For 6e or 5.5, I would do one of two things:

Keep the 5e lore that sorcery can come from a pact with a dragon, the blessing of a fey, or the mark of a demon, and do away with the warlock class. Use this as a chance to make sorcery more distinct from wizardry, by recycling warlock mechanics into sorcerous ones.
Change the warlock's spellcasting ability to Intelligence. Switch the places of patrons and pacts in the class' design (i.e. start right away with the hexblade, binder and occultist subclasses, to which you can give an aberrant, fey or fiendish coating).

[Tvtyrant]

Seems to me that you dislike the ranger more then thinking that classes/subclasses divisions are better off exisisting in a reduced fashion.

I'd rather have a Ranger class with a Beastmaster subclass that is going to give a way different feel then only a Wizard skilled in Survival or a Bard with a trained pet. There's hardly anything these three have in common- and this is good! It means breadth of possibilities. Like PhoenixPyre said, you'd have to either remove many possible ideas for characters or make subclasses of subclasses, which looks way less neat then the current system.


And I'm still pissed that the Binder isn't in 5e and nothing similar is in its stead.

I prefer Totemist to Barbarian/Ranger, Binder to Warlock, Warblade to Fighter, Warlord to Bard (although there is room for both I think.) There have been plenty of better design spaces in my opinion, the current roster is what it is.

[Gyor]

I find the idea of combining Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Clerics when Sorcerers are basically a bunch of seperate classes that share access to metamagic already.

I mean outside of font of magic/sp & metamagic, almost all of the Sorcerer's features come from subclasses, almost all of the flavour comes from subclasses, and many of them don't even cast the same kind of magic (Divine Souls cast divine magic, Aberrant Souls cast Psionic Magic, Wild/Dragon/Storm cast Arcane, and I guess Shadow Magic Sorcerer as the successor to the Shadowcaster casts Shadow Magic).

In fact you can point to pervious classes in other editions the gave birth of many of the subclasses. Favoured Soul (3e) & Mystic (2e) classes lead to the Divine Soul subclass, the Wilder psionic class/Psion class (3.5e) lead to the Abberant Mind Subclass (with a strange twist), the Shadowcaster from 3.5e lead to the Shadowmagic Sorcerer, and Wild Mage was kit for Wizards, Dragon Blood was the default fluff for 3.5e Sorcerers, Storm I have no idea where that came from, but it feels like playing Storm from the X-Men, but with greater versality, and Mechanus Sorcerers are like nothing in any other edition.

PF Sorcerers are somewhat like this too.

[Sorinth]

I see some comments here supporting the idea that since the mechanics are so different the classes are good as is. I'd argue the opposite; short rest characters are a pain to try to balance the adventuring day around, and sometimes there is just no way to do it that doesn't feel artificial. I'd much rather all characters got most of their resources back in roughly the same proportion of SR/LR so that (for example) an extra encounter that interrupts a short rest is similarly taxing to all characters.
Basically every adventuring day shouldn't have to look like:
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
2-3 encounters
Short Rest
... just for game balance.

You don't have to artificially balance adventuring days around that schedule. If anything you should vary adventure days so that the players never know whether an encounter is the only encounter they'll fight or the first in a long line. SR/LR players will end up better or worse on different adventuring days which is a good thing not a bad one.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

You don't have to artificially balance adventuring days around that schedule. If anything you should vary adventure days so that the players never know whether an encounter is the only encounter they'll fight or the first in a long line. SR/LR players will end up better or worse on different adventuring days which is a good thing not a bad one.

At the risk of repeating some what I already wrote to the other poster who had a similar reaction...
My post was a deliberate overstatement to demonstrate the silliness of the situation. I just happen to believe DMs have enough to consider without having to worry about balancing the number of encounters over 1 day, or as you suggest several days. If we are doing a hex crawl or a city campaign I should be able to do 1 or 2 big encounters for weeks of play time without a player feeling like their character is being unfairly treated. Likewise in a dungeon it might be appropriate to do far more encounters than suggested for many sessions in a row. IMO the amount of variation between SR/LR characters is to large and bad design. It encourages DMs to artificially adjust the number of encounters, regardless of whether it's daily, weekly, or whatever.

[Tanarii]

?? Ranger grew from a Fighter sub class (D&D and AD&D) into its own class: WoTCD&D.

Rogue / Scout isn't a ranger, it's a rogue who grew up in the outdoors rather than in a settlement/port/city.

Yeah it's always puzzled me when people think Rogue Archer for Ranger. It puzzled me when 3.5 made them d8 archer masters. It puzzled me that 5e made the Dex primary instead of Str or Dex like Fighters.

Rangers are Fighters with a splash of Stealth, Survival and Druid features. Not Rogues.

[Democratus]

I disagree completely.

Subclasses make the game a lot better, at least if we're talking about modern D&D. They give constrained, thematic extension points. A role that kits played in 2e and prestige classes did in 3e, except better than both because they're tied in at the core instead of tacked on after-the-fact.

And as far as rangers--forget old editions and old characters. A 5e Ranger is not an Aragorn-expy. There's an ancestral tie there, but it's very very faint and mainly exists in a similarity of name at this point. Nor is it a Drizzt-clone. It's its own thing. Heritage is not destiny--things that are old are not better than things that are new (or vice versa). They all stand alone.

Totally fair. Thanks for explaining your view.

I think we have different baseline preferences. But that's not really a big problem.

Fortunately for both of us there's plenty of D&D to go around. :smallcool:

[Guy Lombard-O]

Do you think it would have been better if there was a single caster class who gained power from powerful entities, whether as ancestor, a being that you worship, a being one makes a deal with, a being whose power you steal or whatever the case may be.

The way I envision such a class would be that it would have a subclass, for example simply called "Dragon" and if you choose that neither the fluff nor the crunch implies the type of relationship you have to dragons. Maybe you have a draconic bloodline, maybe you made a deal with a dragon, maybe you worship Tiamat. In all cases you gain the same abilities and thematically appropriate spells.

This way WotC would not have to make multiple sub classes for a single type of powerful being or worse, have a type of powerful available as a subclass for one class but not for another.

What are you thoughts on this? Or is there really enough reason to separate classes based around powerful beings?

Of course it's all very hypothetical, though there is always a next edition.

Personally, I agree that I actually dislike the distinction between the fluff of the warlock and cleric. If you're getting your powers from otherworldly beings, be they "gods" or not, then that's what you're doing and it matters little exactly what that being is. I further dislike how little cleric's god is usually involved in the cleric PCs' lives, and wish that there was more divine interaction more like a warlock's patron (think Arioch & Elric).

I also dislike the very idea of sorcerers. Wizards (and to a lesser degree bards) manipulate the magical powers of the world, much like scientists. Clerics, warlocks and druids channel the part of the powers of other, more powerful beings. But sorcerers just have that kind of immense power inside them?!? They self-generate (eventually) world-shaping power, sort of like a demi-god? Yeah, no. Not for me.

So I agree that they could all be rolled up into one...fluff wise.

But mechanically, they're all distinct and interesting. I think the game offers few enough mechanically interesting build choices as it is, so I don't like the idea of getting rid of any of them. I've briefly played in other systems like Savage Worlds, where the spells are the spells for everyone and any other than a few minor mechanical differences between divine/arcane basis, the fluff choices are entirely dependent upon the player's creativity to differentiate one caster from another. Honestly, I didn't care for it.

[Naanomi]

Yeah it's always puzzled me when people think Rogue Archer for Ranger. It puzzled me when 3.5 made them d8 archer masters. It puzzled me that 5e made the Dex primary instead of Str or Dex like Fighters.

Rangers are Fighters with a splash of Stealth, Survival and Druid features. Not Rogues.
What makes a Ranger a Ranger? To me... special skill uses... enhanced Tracking, Animal Handling, and (to a lesser degree) Stealth. Therefore when splitting classes into 'Fight/Magic1/Magic2/Skills' they fall into the Skills tab

[Kane0]

D&D has always had a bit of a problem with the whole ‘skills’ thing. Magic and combat are pretty clearly categorized, skills have always been an eclectic mix of categories. Add to that how disjointed or tacked on skills often feel compared to the focus and integration combat and magic has and being a pure ‘skill’ character never really feels like it carries the same weight in D&D.

[Throne12]

There is difference between them.
1. Clerics are blessed by a GOD. There magic isn't just a spell they are blessings and Miracles.
2. Sorcerers are born with innate magical power or absorb it. Making them magical creatures. Working the weave comes naturally to them.
3. Warlocks are given superpowers and cheat codes to work the weave of magic.

So it just doesn't boils down to they are given magic. They have different ways they enter act with magic and different magic even though it all comes from the same source. But if you try and boil it down you should just make all casters one class.

[Kane0]

There is difference between them.
1. Clerics are blessed by a GOD. There magic isn't just a spell they are blessings and Miracles.
2. Sorcerers are born with innate magical power or absorb it. Making them magical creatures. Working the weave comes naturally to them.
3. Warlocks are given superpowers and cheat codes to work the weave of magic.

So it just doesn't boils down to they are given magic. They have different ways they enter act with magic and different magic even though it all comes from the same source. But if you try and boil it down you should just make all casters one class.

Three at least, one for each way you obtain magic. Differences from there could map adequately as subclasses.
For example Mage, Medium and Sorcerer. The Mages learn and master magic by rigid methodology, Mediums act as conduits channelling magic from other sources (Deities and other Powers) and Sorcs rely on purely internal means of using magic (their magic blood, tapping into their souls, etc).
You could make an argument for Druids being separate again as a fourth method depending on how you handle Primal magic (dealing with nature spirits, as a subset of pure faith, runic style magic, etc)

[Sception]

I understand that. But my point was that all of what you're saying is fluff, not mechanics. I get that they are different mechanically as they are made now but they could've been made as a single class with less specific fluff.

Why stop at consolidating just these three then? With general enough fluff you could get by with just two classes - spellcaster and muggle.

Classes are at least as much about providing distinct gameplay experiences mechanically as they are about representing narrative fluff concepts. Hypothetically you could roll fighters and monks and rangers and rogues into the same class and, if you describe it in a sufficiently broad (and imo boring) fashion the hypothetical result could still cover all the same fluff concepts and narrative archetypes, but the result is fewer options and fewer mechanical experiences to enjoy for the players of this game, and imo that's not a good thing.

Streamlining and simplicity is not always better.

https://pr0.zoon.ru/3DpxpbWGUWYVMe9EberBTQ/600x338,q85/4px-BW84_n2seIiNZAHHWGt8t_lSfroDDZitDmJcnXmqSnIrWAtoFw LrfizZDtbDew2uCEXY4IZr0pCyEthCz_GQ9RMfNm--W6jFsblrdPF1wIs7PWR8fW2NRjUb1IGlaUFRoYrTJf2iM0w2c8 cUeIE2JOj3kwEns7xlUrMwWaC63tPyn6N6eeHR-S4eR8L7IlTIr9W7tCx0ags8H6LFwq1fHgpy5HDROvMTb_Imjtp cHNyQzvlOAi1gCkikgqLHI4XH7PFd7_-BsQ6EZOaW2BC423r4tijZlKFYlznRlugiDlhveOYLLg

The logo on the right is not objectively superior to the one on the left. And subjectively, I'd argue quite the contrary.

[Democratus]

Why stop at consolidating just these three then? With general enough fluff you could get by with just two classes - spellcaster and muggle.

Classes are at least as much about providing distinct gameplay experiences mechanically as they are about representing narrative fluff concepts. Hypothetically you could roll fighters and monks and rangers and rogues into the same class and, if you describe it in a sufficiently broad (and imo boring) fashion the hypothetical result could still cover all the same fluff concepts and narrative archetypes, but the result is fewer options and fewer mechanical experiences to enjoy for the players of this game, and imo that's not a good thing.

Streamlining and simplicity is not always better.

There are great times to be had with editions of D&D that just have 3 (or 4) classes: Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric (Thief added in Greyhawk).

Simplicity isn't the enemy of fun.

What you want is a list of classes that serves the needs of your table.

If the players have more fun at your table by having cleric, priest, mystic, shaman, druid, wizard, sage, warlock, witch, and sorcerer all be different classes - then that is the way for you. If, instead, you just want a class called "hero" (the original Chainmail fighting man template) then that works too.

For my table, we tend to go back and forth on this. We will play a game with a very simple class system (Traveller, Cthulhu, GURPS, etc.) sometimes. Then we will turn around and play something like Warhammer Fantasy or Pathfinder where there are tons of classes.

[Tenawa]

I think that's a strange idea. If so, you could argue there should be one martial class (inlcuding fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian and perhaps even monk). Of course all that is possible, but it breaks much of 5e philosophy.

[ezekielraiden]

No, it would not be better. On the one hand, do you really want the "coffeelock" to be a default option? On the other, does it really make sense that power-through-contract and power-through-bloodline be represented by a single thing?

(And don't even get me started on Warlocks being different from Clerics...I swear, it's like people don't even realize what faith IS anymore...)

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

I like retaining the distinction, but I think that Warlocks could have been more sharply defined. Here's how I see it:

Cleric: His power either comes from a higher being or from the cleric's faith in that higher being.

Sorcerer: His power comes from what he is. He is either descended from some supernatural being or has been transformed/mutated by some supernatural essence.

Warlock: His power comes from delving into the greater, esoteric mysteries beyond ordinary reality. These ineffable mysteries cannot simply be studied but must be experienced, so Warlocks almost always have a patron, mystagogue, pyschopomp, master, muse, teacher or other guide.

A Cleric might worship Set, and derives his power from that relationship. A Sorcerer might have Set as a great-grandparent, and derives his power from his being a semi-demigod. A Warlock might have been shown the true power of the Dark Side by Set or one of his cultists, and derives his power from the Dark Side.

A Cleric might worship Auburon, Lord of the Fey. A Sorcerer might be part-fey. A Warlock has encountered the feywild itself.

Anyway,

Ken

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hi,

I like retaining the distinction, but I think that Warlocks could have been more sharply defined. Here's how I see it:

Cleric: His power either comes from a higher being or from the cleric's faith in that higher being.

Sorcerer: His power comes from what he is. He is either descended from some supernatural being or has been transformed/mutated by some supernatural essence.

Warlock: His power comes from delving into the greater, esoteric mysteries beyond ordinary reality. These ineffable mysteries cannot simply be studied but must be experienced, so Warlocks almost always have a patron, mystagogue, pyschopomp, master, muse, teacher or other guide.

A Cleric might worship Set, and derives his power from that relationship. A Sorcerer might have Set as a great-grandparent, and derives his power from his being a semi-demigod. A Warlock might have been shown the true power of the Dark Side by Set or one of his cultists, and derives his power from the Dark Side.

A Cleric might worship Auburon, Lord of the Fey. A Sorcerer might be part-fey. A Warlock has encountered the feywild itself.

Anyway,

Ken

One other big note is that a warlock is directly manipulating the "Weave" (or equivalent) using knowledge and power granted as part of a contract/contact with another being. He's not channeling that other being's power, he's an independent operator. Sure, he might ask for boosts (CF the capstone), but each spell/slot represents being taught/having their soul opened to the new power via their guide. Once they have that power, the patron can't go backsies. They can punish the warlock, send agents to rough him up, or other things, but they can't directly cut off the flow of power. So a "fallen" warlock can definitely use the knowledge and power he was given against his patron, at the risk of not getting new supplies of knowledge and power later. Effectively, they have a version of the "do magic" software installed locally that doesn't phone home.

On the other hand, a cleric has no independent power without their deity. All the power and knowledge is the deities, the cleric just has a Cloud version of the "do magic" software. They make API requests, and their deity does the heavy lifting. And their keys can be revoked at any time, leaving the cleric without power. A cleric who goes against their deity must very quickly find a new patron or be left without power.

On the third side, sorcerers don't have patrons. They have the knowledge/power to manipulate the "Weave" within them as a consequence of birth (etc). It's effectively (epi-)genetically imprinted on them. They don't learn spells, they figure out how to access/control the ones that were already inside of them. Sure, we add in some gamey-ness so they're not stuck, but the fiction is that sorcerers don't have a choice in what spells they have. They get what they're born/made with, nothing more, nothing less.

To me, these are all very different thematics, and trying to smoosh them down into one just leaves you with fighter Mk II, Electric Boogaloo/vague "archetype" edition.

Using your example, a warlock with Set as his patron is an independent contractor, of the "fee for service" type. He pays his dues (which may or may not involve souls!), he gets his nugget of power. His "DLC" so to speak. After that, the power is his. I prefer to think of the contractual-type warlocks as having done their service before level 1--the debt is paid, the power has been received. Each level is a new rider on the contract. He doesn't care really about Set's doctrine, only about what Set wants for this next power boost.

A cleric of Set is an employee and a fanboy. He only has the keys to the shop because he's got an active working relationship with Set. Including faith in Set, Set's objectives, and Set's doctrine. He's actively out there moving Set's work along, and if he ever stops, he's fired.

A sorcerer influenced by Set (gonna guess Shadow or Divine Soul) had parents who were devoted cultists and who participated in rituals around the time of his conception/birth that left a mark. He has no connection to Set other than this lingering change to his makeup. He might (and probably doesn't) even know who Set is or what Set wants. And even if he does, it doesn't matter whether he likes Set or not, and he's not paying Set anything. His power is his own, regardless of the origin.

[Millstone85]

On the other, does it really make sense that power-through-contract and power-through-bloodline be represented by a single thing?The thing is, that is already the case with the draconic sorcerer.

Your innate magic comes from draconic magic that was mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors. Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon or who might even have claimed a dragon parent. Some of these bloodlines are well established in the world, but most are obscure. Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance.And it seems so easy to replace the dragon with another powerful creature, such as a fey, a fiend, an aberration, a celestial, a genie, a kraken, etc.

Really, if we finally got The Wyrm as an otherwordly patron, the question would be turned around. How would the lore of this warlock subclass set itself apart from what the sorcerer already has?

Maybe they simply shouldn't have mentioned bargains and pacts in that text. But I think the problem is actually with the warlock. Some possible fixes:

Warlocks are all about learning and using forbidden arcana (and should be Int-based).
Such pacts are inevitably *ba dum tss* noticed by the Kolyarut or some other embodiment of Law.
The pact itself is a type of geas, compelling both the warlock and the patron to its terms.


These ineffable mysteries cannot simply be studied but must be experienced, so Warlocks almost always have a patron, mystagogue, pyschopomp, master, muse, teacher or other guide.Oh, that's good!

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing is, that is already the case with the draconic sorcerer.
And it seems so easy to replace the dragon with another powerful creature, such as a fey, a fiend, an aberration, a celestial, a genie, a kraken, etc.

Really, if we finally got The Wyrm as an otherwordly patron, the question would be turned around. How would the lore of this warlock subclass set itself apart from what the sorcerer already has?

Maybe they simply shouldn't have mentioned bargains and pacts in that text. But I think the problem is actually with the warlock. Some possible fixes:

Warlocks are all about learning and using forbidden arcana (and should be Int-based).
Such pacts are inevitably *ba dum tss* noticed by the Kolyarut or some other embodiment of Law.
The pact itself is a type of geas, compelling both the warlock and the patron to its terms.

Oh, that's good!

One colorable difference between the first of a draconic bloodline and a Wyrm warlock--

If you made a deal (avoiding the word "pact") with a dragon to be changed so that you had dragon powers (or made an unrelated deal and were changed as a side effect), you're a sorcerer. If you made a pact with a dragon, who then taught you "tricks" and ripped open pockets in your soul to cast from (ie spell slots), you're a warlock. The descendents of either, however, are likely to be sorcerers, unless the deal is multi-generational (you'll make the same changes to my children to the nth-generation).

But it's a fine line. I do wish they'd avoided the word pact, however.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,


One other big note is that a warlock is directly manipulating the "Weave" (or equivalent) using knowledge and power granted as part of a contract/contact with another being. He's not channeling that other being's power, he's an independent operator. Sure, he might ask for boosts (CF the capstone), but each spell/slot represents being taught/having their soul opened to the new power via their guide.

Or via some other guide, or even though no guide at all, because once the Warlock's eyes have been opened to the greater truth, he begins to see. A Warlock might not even need a guide to get his first class level, if he stumbles into a suitable experience.

From a playability perspective, I think it is good to make it clear that Warlocks (or Clerics or Wizards or Fighters) are not uniquely dependent upon NPCs for class advancement. Most players don't find that fun, and the classes are not balanced so that some need a compensating disadvantage of this kind.

Fortunately, fiction often represents people of this kind as becoming independent. In Star Wars, for example, nearly all the major Force-using characters start off with a teacher but develop their own way. A Warlock's teacher might become an enemy and send cultists to kill him, and that makes a fine story element, but the Wizard's Guild might do similarly, and the party Rogue's ex-guildmaster might send ninja...


On the other hand, a cleric has no independent power without their deity. All the power and knowledge is the deities, the cleric just has a Cloud version of the "do magic" software. They make API requests, and their deity does the heavy lifting. And their keys can be revoked at any time, leaving the cleric without power. A cleric who goes against their deity must very quickly find a new patron or be left without power.

Maybe! And maybe not. When talking about clerics, I was very careful to note that they might get their power through faith in their deity rather than the deity itself. A cleric who loses his faith might be in trouble, but this is in the player's hand rather than the GM's. It also unveils a rich tapestry of story ideas, and is consonant with a lot of modern fiction.


On the third side, sorcerers don't have patrons. ... They don't learn spells, they figure out how to access/control the ones that were already inside of them. Sure, we add in some gamey-ness so they're not stuck, but the fiction is that sorcerers don't have a choice in what spells they have. They get what they're born/made with, nothing more, nothing less.

A sorcerer can have a patron, but again, I don't think it is required either way.

For example, adolescence is hard enough even if you're not part Dragon; it might be very helpful to have a mentor. In some game worlds, it might even be hard to survive without learning the ropes. There might be societies that find and mentor young sorcerers... or kill them if they cannot or will not learn to control their power.

As for sorcerers having no choice about their spells.... maybe! But also maybe not. Potential can sometimes take different forms, depending on environment and experience. A high-level sorcerer is more powerful because he has developed his power, similar to how a fighter becomes better at what he does, through some mix of training and experience.

I definitely agree that:



... these are all very different thematics. ...

Although...


Using your example, a warlock with Set as his patron is an independent contractor, of the "fee for service" type. He pays his dues (which may or may not involve souls!), he gets his nugget of power. His "DLC" so to speak. After that, the power is his. I prefer to think of the contractual-type warlocks as having done their service before level 1--the debt is paid, the power has been received. Each level is a new rider on the contract. He doesn't care really about Set's doctrine, only about what Set wants for this next power boost.

Hmm. I don't see it that way.

On the one hand, I almost certainly would not play a Warlock in a game where I had to pay a debt to a patron every level. Were I to GM that way without warning prospective warlock players that this is how things are before character creation, I expect angry players, and rightfully so.

On the other, I think the relationship can be more complicated than that. I'll stick with Star Wars as an analogy. Just as a young Jedi might want to stay with the organization, and not see ongoing training and relationships as being part a contractual relationship, so too might a Fiend or Whatever Warlock. The Jedi might not see his time as padawan as a service that he performed. And for both Jedi and Warlock, advancing might be less about the power but about achieving greater wisdom and insight.

It doesn't have to be. A Feylock might need to drive one person insane every level. A Fiendlock might have to corrupt someone. A GOOlock might need to find a suitable shrubbery.

But if I wanted to represent a tighter relationship between a Warlock PC and some greater master or organization, I'd put the benefits front and center: You have a patron, and that's a good thing, because you can ask it for favors! You know the secret signs and can reach out to your cult in need, or just hang out! Of course, the patron might then ask *you* for a favor too, and your brother Masons can reach out to you too...


A cleric of Set is an employee and a fanboy. He only has the keys to the shop because he's got an active working relationship with Set. Including faith in Set, Set's objectives, and Set's doctrine. He's actively out there moving Set's work along, and if he ever stops, he's fired.


Maybe. But Set might not even exist, and the cleric gets his power from his faith, to the extent that he can conjure "Set" at need! And if Set does exist, he might need his clerics far more than they need him, because potential gods are many but only a precious few have developed the faith and inner steel to channel divine power, and such people can transfer their faith to virtually any spirit they find worthy. Or Set might not get to choose his clerics in any way: A cleric who has faith in a god automatically gets power, and the god has no say in it. Or it is a partnership of a sort. Or it's exactly as you say. Or it's even weirder than that. Divinity is complicated.


A sorcerer influenced by Set (gonna guess Shadow or Divine Soul) had parents who were devoted cultists and who participated in rituals around the time of his conception/birth that left a mark. He has no connection to Set other than this lingering change to his makeup. He might (and probably doesn't) even know who Set is or what Set wants. And even if he does, it doesn't matter whether he likes Set or not, and he's not paying Set anything. His power is his own, regardless of the origin.

I see it that way too. Ironically, a Sorcerer has both the deepest and most tenuous connection to the origin of his power.

Anyway,

Ken

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hi,


Or via some other guide, or even though no guide at all, because once the Warlock's eyes have been opened to the greater truth, he begins to see. A Warlock might not even need a guide to get his first class level, if he stumbles into a suitable experience.


All warlocks have a Pact and a Patron. That patron may not know/care, but there was contact with some being, some entity. That's the core essence of a Warlock. They didn't get the spark of power themselves. It came from somewhere.



From a playability perspective, I think it is good to make it clear that Warlocks (or Clerics or Wizards or Fighters) are not uniquely dependent upon NPCs for class advancement. Most players don't find that fun, and the classes are not balanced so that some need a compensating disadvantage of this kind.

Fortunately, fiction often represents people of this kind as becoming independent. In Star Wars, for example, nearly all the major Force-using characters start off with a teacher but develop their own way. A Warlock's teacher might become an enemy and send cultists to kill him, and that makes a fine story element, but the Wizard's Guild might do similarly, and the party Rogue's ex-guildmaster might send ninja...
...
Hmm. I don't see it that way.

On the one hand, I almost certainly would not play a Warlock in a game where I had to pay a debt to a patron every level. Were I to GM that way without warning prospective warlock players that this is how things are before character creation, I expect angry players, and rightfully so.

On the other, I think the relationship can be more complicated than that. I'll stick with Star Wars as an analogy. Just as a young Jedi might want to stay with the organization, and not see ongoing training and relationships as being part a contractual relationship, so too might a Fiend or Whatever Warlock. The Jedi might not see his time as padawan as a service that he performed. And for both Jedi and Warlock, advancing might be less about the power but about achieving greater wisdom and insight.

It doesn't have to be. A Feylock might need to drive one person insane every level. A Fiendlock might have to corrupt someone. A GOOlock might need to find a suitable shrubbery.

But if I wanted to represent a tighter relationship between a Warlock PC and some greater master or organization, I'd put the benefits front and center: You have a patron, and that's a good thing, because you can ask it for favors! You know the secret signs and can reach out to your cult in need, or just hang out! Of course, the patron might then ask *you* for a favor too, and your brother Masons can reach out to you too...


Generally, I don't require per-level payment in any particular way. But repeated contact with their patron is core, to me, of the Warlock's class fiction. They're not self-made/self-studied powers. Their power growth requires repeated immersion in that font. And not all are contractual--fey and GOO especially are more likely just contact. Others may not know what the price is--I've had patrons who watched through their client's dreams.

I've got a warlock right now who doesn't know who his patron is--his memory's been wiped. He doesn't know the price he's paid or is paying.

I also have lots of in-universe "warlocks" who are the priests of their communities--true clerics are few and far between because most don't have the capital-F Faith and strength to maintain a direct connection. It's way easier for a god to teach someone a trick, or for them to learn it via rituals of a faith that involve ritual contact with deity. At the cost that it's not something that can grow on its own, so you end up with a lot of low-power "warlocks" running around. And non-god ascended beings can make warlocks, while they can't make clerics.



Maybe! And maybe not. When talking about clerics, I was very careful to note that they might get their power through faith in their deity rather than the deity itself. A cleric who loses his faith might be in trouble, but this is in the player's hand rather than the GM's. It also unveils a rich tapestry of story ideas, and is consonant with a lot of modern fiction.


For worldbuilding, I dislike that idea. Power from abstract faith in something that doesn't really exist or in an abstract concept is a paladin's bailwick. I prefer my gods to be real but distant. Clerics are agents. Sure, the god rarely intervenes in anything more than the most distant sort of thing (except for Divine Intervention, which doesn't work well at all if the deity doesn't exist), but they're there and the cleric has to build around their active living service to this being.



A sorcerer can have a patron, but again, I don't think it is required either way.

For example, adolescence is hard enough even if you're not part Dragon; it might be very helpful to have a mentor. In some game worlds, it might even be hard to survive without learning the ropes. There might be societies that find and mentor young sorcerers... or kill them if they cannot or will not learn to control their power.

As for sorcerers having no choice about their spells.... maybe! But also maybe not. Potential can sometimes take different forms, depending on environment and experience. A high-level sorcerer is more powerful because he has developed his power, similar to how a fighter becomes better at what he does, through some mix of training and experience.


Mentors are not Patrons (note the capital letter). Sorcerers may have mentors, but they don't gain their power from them in any real way. And yes, they gain power from training and experience, but they don't get different spells (at least how I see it). Although there's an argument to be made that they can twist a known spell into something new...but that feels wrong to me.




Maybe. But Set might not even exist, and the cleric gets his power from his faith, to the extent that he can conjure "Set" at need! And if Set does exist, he might need his clerics far more than they need him, because potential gods are many but only a precious few have developed the faith and inner steel to channel divine power, and such people can transfer their faith to virtually any spirit they find worthy. Or Set might not get to choose his clerics in any way: A cleric who has faith in a god automatically gets power, and the god has no say in it. Or it is a partnership of a sort. Or it's exactly as you say. Or it's even weirder than that. Divinity is complicated.


I dislike the idea that the gods don't have a choice. I'd say it's the other way around--the mortals may not have a choice. Clerics are Chosen, in distinction to paladins who Choose. Faith, for me, has to be in something and isn't a fungible property--if I have faith in Tor-Elan (to use god names from my setting to avoid any real-world connotations), I can't just transfer it to Sakara.

On the other hand, I do have the idea in my setting of "false clerics"--clerics who gain power, but not from who they think they are. They've been tricked into assigning a set of beliefs to a name that doesn't fit. One example is a whole faction of zealots (in the WH40K "purge the heretic, burn the xenos" mold) who believe that they're called by the goddess of domesticity and the hearth/home (a thoroughly pacifistic deity) to do the "necessary evil deeds" to keep everyone else safe. And they take the fact of their power as proof of their calling. But they're really sponsored by the god of trickery and deception, because he finds it hilarious (he's not a very nice person).

[ezekielraiden]

The thing is, that is already the case with the draconic sorcerer.
And it seems so easy to replace the dragon with another powerful creature, such as a fey, a fiend, an aberration, a celestial, a genie, a kraken, etc.

Really, if we finally got The Wyrm as an otherwordly patron, the question would be turned around. How would the lore of this warlock subclass set itself apart from what the sorcerer already has?

Maybe they simply shouldn't have mentioned bargains and pacts in that text. But I think the problem is actually with the warlock. Some possible fixes:

Warlocks are all about learning and using forbidden arcana (and should be Int-based).
Such pacts are inevitably *ba dum tss* noticed by the Kolyarut or some other embodiment of Law.
The pact itself is a type of geas, compelling both the warlock and the patron to its terms.


The key thing, though, is that whatever this pact does, it actually transforms the sorcerer physically. The sorcerer isn't just being granted a boon or being told the insider secrets of the universe (the warlock's "quick path" as opposed to the wizard's "slow road"). The sorcerer is literally becoming partly a dragon, celestial, etc. It's a power literally in the blood; the fluff text also explicitly says that. A warlock's power is not in the blood, it is in the promise.

A distinction between power-in-the-blood and power-in-the-promise matters. Maybe warlocks can accidentally create sorcerers due to their (promise-derived) power becoming accidentally heritable in their children. That can be an interesting story. But the sorcerer is still, fundamentally, having power "coursing through them" rather than "bestowed upon them."

Sorcerers have power in their blood, it is an innate part of their being. You could forget how to be any of the other things, but not how to be a Sorcerer. They explore this power through developing their sense of self (Charisma).

Warlocks beg, bargain, and steal their secrets from powerful beings, it is not innate to them, it is a secret revealed or a promise made. Every use of it is, in some sense, a negotiation or deception (Charisma).

Wizards come to understand the fundamental rules of reality--and the ways that our expectations of it are fundamentally just approximations. They learn how to set those expectations aside with the right preparations (Intelligence).

Clerics derive power from sincere faith and devotion, whether to a person, a force, or a concept. They grow in power by communion with and understanding of a transcendent essence outside themselves (Wisdom).

Warlocks resemble Wizards because both are about secret knowledge, just one is "borrowed"/"bestowed" while the other is "calculated"/"empirical." They resemble Clerics because both deal in some way with powerful external forces, just one is a matter of business and transaction, while the other is a matter of faith and service. Warlocks resemble Sorcerers because their power is, in part, a function of how much self-confidence and strength of personality the character has, but one is because they must know how to negotiate or advocate, while the other is directly enforcing their will upon the world.

(Likewise, Sorcerers and Wizards are similar because both achieve the end of independent personal power, but one is internal awakening while the other is mastery of fundamental law. Wizards and Clerics are both studious--after all, we still speak of clerical duties IRL to refer to doing paperwork!--but Wizards do it to unlock hidden secrets of reality, while Clerics do it to draw closer to their object of devotion. Really, the only pair of classes here that doesn't have much of anything in common is Sorcerer and Cleric.)

I certainly grant that 5e could have done more to up the "patron teaches you" angle of Warlock. It was a crying shame that (alleged) "feedback" made them retract the original playtest Warlock and Sorcerer, which would have been much more thematically distinct.

[Amnestic]

Warlocks beg, bargain, and steal their secrets from powerful beings, it is not innate to them, it is a secret revealed or a promise made. Every use of it is, in some sense, a negotiation or deception (Charisma).



Sometimes a traveler in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it. And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant but crazed student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void
-PHB 105/106

Those descriptions don't sound like any of it is negotiation or deception. In both cases they're basically unaware of the pact until it happens and is practically forced on them.


The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.
-PHB 109.

Not a lot of negotiating going on with something entirely unaware of your existence I'm guessing.

[Millstone85]

Maybe! And maybe not. When talking about clerics, I was very careful to note that they might get their power through faith in their deity rather than the deity itself. A cleric who loses his faith might be in trouble, but this is in the player's hand rather than the GM's. It also unveils a rich tapestry of story ideas, and is consonant with a lot of modern fiction.
For worldbuilding, I dislike that idea. Power from abstract faith in something that doesn't really exist or in an abstract concept is a paladin's bailwick. I prefer my gods to be real but distant. Clerics are agents. Sure, the god rarely intervenes in anything more than the most distant sort of thing (except for Divine Intervention, which doesn't work well at all if the deity doesn't exist), but they're there and the cleric has to build around their active living service to this being.I have this idea for "theurgical physics" that would begin with astral storms.
A psychic wind isn't a physical wind like that found on the Material Plane, but a storm of thought that batters travelers' minds rather than their bodies. A psychic wind is made up of lost memories, forgotten ideas, minor musings, and subconscious fears that went astray in the Astral Plane and conglomerated into this powerful force. A psychic wind is first sensed as a rapid darkening of the silver-gray sky. What if some of these were instead made of prayers and meditations associated with a particular set of beliefs? As time goes by, the storm would develop into an astral demiplane, manifesting as an idealized holy site of the faith. Later still, the soul of a divine spellcaster might be opened to the full power of the place, or the demiplane itself might awaken. Thus a god is born.

A consequence of this is that (1) being a cleric of an ideal absolutely works, provided enough believers aliment the astral storm, but (2) you never know when your philosophy might transform into a full-fledged deity. In that regard, a notorious astral demiplane would be the Athar Citadel, which in this headcanon has been equipped with a self-destruct mechanism should "the plague of ego" take hold of it. Rumors have it that several previous citadels were disposed of in that way, but others claim there is no such proof of the mechanism's efficiency.

Also, while there might exist divine spellcasters who siphon the power of a faith they do not hold (e.g. ur-priests) as well as people who had the power forced upon them, both would be very precarious situations that often threaten the caster's sanity.


Maybe warlocks can accidentally create sorcerers due to their (promise-derived) power becoming accidentally heritable in their children. That can be an interesting story. But the sorcerer is still, fundamentally, having power "coursing through them" rather than "bestowed upon them."
I certainly grant that 5e could have done more to up the "patron teaches you" angle of Warlock. It was a crying shame that (alleged) "feedback" made them retract the original playtest Warlock and Sorcerer, which would have been much more thematically distinct.Alright, yes, that makes sense.

[Willie the Duck]

Do you think it would have been better if there was a single caster class who gained power from powerful entities, whether as ancestor, a being that you worship, a being one makes a deal with, a being whose power you steal or whatever the case may be.

The way I envision such a class would be that it would have a subclass, for example simply called "Dragon" and if you choose that neither the fluff nor the crunch implies the type of relationship you have to dragons. Maybe you have a draconic bloodline, maybe you made a deal with a dragon, maybe you worship Tiamat. In all cases you gain the same abilities and thematically appropriate spells.

This way WotC would not have to make multiple sub classes for a single type of powerful being or worse, have a type of powerful available as a subclass for one class but not for another.

What are you thoughts on this? Or is there really enough reason to separate classes based around powerful beings?

Of course it's all very hypothetical, though there is always a next edition.

Honestly I wouldn't look forward to a new edition with this, but I could see it happening in an alternate 3e, or even going back to the beginning of D&D. Gary claimed a patch of territory for his D&D Magic User and it was 'emulate Jack Vance's Dying Earth series.' What this did was lock the magic user (which became mage which became wizard) into the role of 'studious spellcaster who gains magic through dusty old tomes and scrolls and book learning.' That conception seems to have stuck, even as with 4e and 5e the actual Vancian casting has been replaced or muted. This made a lot of sense in, say, BX, BECMI or AD&D when running around looking for new spells as treasure was a huge part of developing a magic user, but since Mages started being able to choose spells as they levelled up, it kinda faded to merely explaining their specific power source. Thing is, in the overall fantasy/myth/faerie tale/etc. magic user milieu, it's actually fairly unusual. Merlin? Half-demon. Gandalf? Angel (or something similar). Circe? Daughter of god and either goddess or nymph (admittedly with some herbalism and potion-making knowledge that comes in somewhere). The studious guy with the tomes and ink stains is something of an outlier (honestly mostly coming from the Aleister Crowley/Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn-era depiction of magic, which is 19th/20th century). It really seems that the having all these things that are now split out into warlocks and sorcerers and such part of an overall wizard class would have made a huge amount of sense back in (an alternate) TSR-era D&D. And of course, since there weren't sorcerer and warlock classes, it kind of was in the D&D/AD&D we got (also, they showed up in the level-names of the magic user class: Prestidigitator, Evoker, Conjurer, Theurgist, Thaumaturgist, Magician, Enchanter, Warlock, Sorcerer, Necromancer, Wizard), except of course mechanically you were still going around hunting spells for your spellbook.

That said, as the game has progressed and various character concepts got shaved off of each of the main classes and eventually became their own thing (with subparts being shaved off of those), there's no specific reason that all the magic users have to be shoved into one class. Clerics have gone from a one-off anti-vampire character to a healbot to their own thing. Warlocks are decidedly different both in style and playstyle than sorcerers or wizards (sorcerers and wizards clearly don't have enough mechanical space between them, otoh). Really, unless we want to pare things back to Warrior/Caster/Expert, I don't see a specific reason to change much for 6e, other than work on getting the balance right and yes figure out what they want out of sorcerers (if anything).

[Luccan]

I think there's a meaningful difference between the character concepts of "traded something with a powerful entity for magical power" and "is a magical mutant". The main reason the lines have blurred this edition is because Wizards of the Coast didn't want to back up the implications of Warlocks making deals with tricky entities (or Clerics following gods) with rule-based consequences should they displease a powerful NPC.

Edit: I also think the classes are mechanically distinct enough that there's no particularly compelling reason on the crunch side to blend them if you're leaving all the other classes untouched.

Personally, though, if I were to remove one of these classes, it would be Warlock. Pretty much any spellcaster could be used to represent a character empowered by a questionable entity, whether that be a Wizard who traded his soul to learn magic from a devil, a Cleric in service to an evil god, or a Sorcerer who was favored by a dark fey. I don't want to subsume Warlock into other classes because I find it mechanically interesting, but it probably never needed to be a separate class.

[Willie the Duck]

Personally, though, if I were to remove one of these classes, it would be Warlock. Pretty much any spellcaster could be used to represent a character empowered by a questionable entity, whether that be a Wizard who traded his soul to learn magic from a devil, a Cleric in service to an evil god, or a Sorcerer who was favored by a dark fey. I don't want to subsume Warlock into other classes because I find it mechanically interesting, but it probably never needed to be a separate class.
If we are going that route, why not give the mechanics to the sorcerer power-source?

[Luccan]

If we are going that route, why not give the mechanics to the sorcerer power-source?

It could certainly help cement the feel of a naturally empowered mage if they had a bit more magic to call upon whenever, though I think metamagic + invocations might be going a bit far.

[Willie the Duck]

It could certainly help cement the feel of a naturally empowered mage if they had a bit more magic to call upon whenever, though I think metamagic + invocations might be going a bit far.

I meant the whole of the mechanics -- just rename what is effectively the warlock class 'sorcerer'* and let the sorcerer class mechanics (by which I mean metamagic) go back to the tool shelf to be added into the new game wherever they are needed (if at all).
*Yes, some futzing around would have to be done, especially with some pact-themed things and names, but we're talking about a theoretical new edition here.

[KorvinStarmast]

Really, unless we want to pare things back to Warrior/Caster/Expert -
Diablo I did that for a CRPG :smallbiggrin:

I don't see a specific reason to change much for 6e, other than work on getting the balance right and yes figure out what they want out of sorcerers (if anything). I think Sorcerers need to be dropped into the shredder and the Warlock fitted into the "not a wizard" niche with their whole pact magic thing and yet being an INT caster. But they don't pay me for these brilliant ideas. (drat!)

[anthon]

i can totally see the Warlock/Cleric Overlap. Maybe make Warlock a subclass of Cleric. Ive played a couple of different games where Warlocks were fundamentally no different from Clerics in the sense of power source, ethos, or purpose, but only differed in terms of spell access.

To this i say, what about a Rogue?

There's rogues that have a decent spell list,

but there's rogues with no spell list.

If you can justify Rogues both with and without spells,

You can justify Cleric-Warlocks with few vs. many spells.

I have no opinion of the Sorcerer, but think Wild Mage belongs in Wizard. Dragon based Sorcerer, if anything, reads like a Racial Template with spells to me.

[Luccan]

i can totally see the Warlock/Cleric Overlap. Maybe make Warlock a subclass of Cleric. Ive played a couple of different games where Warlocks were fundamentally no different from Clerics in the sense of power source, ethos, or purpose, but only differed in terms of spell access.

To this i say, what about a Rogue?

There's rogues that have a decent spell list,

but there's rogues with no spell list.

If you can justify Rogues both with and without spells,

You can justify Cleric-Warlocks with few vs. many spells.

I have no opinion of the Sorcerer, but think Wild Mage belongs in Wizard. Dragon based Sorcerer, if anything, reads like a Racial Template with spells to me.

Currently, Warlock and Cleric have a significant difference in spell access. All cleric subclasses currently gain access to spells in the same way (long rests, full list) modified mainly by a few "always prepared" spells determined entirely by subclass. Warlocks, meanwhile, recover spells on short rests, have a limited number of spells known, and gain other spells (or magic related effects) through ala carte selection that can range from always on to once a day and generally have little to do with subclass choices. And Warlocks don't even progress their spellcasting in a standard manner, all their high level spells are once-a-day castings. It doesn't fit the Cleric subclass model mechanically, even if it fits it thematically (magically empowered by another being).

Arcane Trickster is a single spellcasting subclass that simply says "yes spells" where the rogue normally says "no spells". It's not altering a core part of the class, it's adding a mechanic like all subclasses. This means that it's free to build its spell progression and rules from scratch, without significantly deviating from a pre-established spell slot/known/progression formula and confusing the whole class. In other words: Turning the spellcasting switch on or off is much easier than adjusting the entire spell machine.

[Witty Username]

There are ranges to similarity of classes. For example Ranger, Paladin, and Artificer are all partial casters partial martial characters but they all use different spell lists, casting styles, ability scores, etc.
I put some thought into this a ended up with this


Caster
Caster-martial Hybrid
martial



Wizard
Artificer
Fighter/Barbarian


Cleric/Druid
Ranger
Rogue


Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer
Paladin
Monk



The slashes being where significant overlap exists. The big divide being ability score used for spell casting. From this we can see the sorcerer needs more justification than say the paladin, or the barbarian more than the ranger.
I would argue
The Bard, Warlock, and sorcerer are all cha casters. So we could justify one staying simply because we wouldn't have a charisma caster otherwise, I would argue the Bard has most cause to stay because of its strong ties to charisma and what that score represents. Followed by Warlock given its casting abilities are other mechanically to any other caster, followed by the sorcerer because of its access to meta magic but it could somewhat painlessly be translated into a subclass of warlock or wizard.
So we would keep Bard, Bard and warlock, or all three.
Cleric to Druid has overlap due to wisdom. Clerics flexibility of domains make it easy to justify on shear amount of possible themes, flavor and mechanics. The Druid has the call of powerful abilities and specific visual themes in comparison to the cleric (lack of metal armor, wild shape) give it some identity even if we were being somewhat strict on the subject.
Fighter and barbarian are both direct martial classes. Fighter can cover virtually any archetype of warrior making it easy to justify. Barbarian is very tied into rage and not much else, making it reliant on sub classes for its identity. Translating it into a subclass and keeping all of its core abilities is relatively easy.
My take from easiest keep to easiest drop of these
Fighter
Cleric
Bard
Warlock
Druid
Sorcerer
Barbarian

[ezekielraiden]

i can totally see the Warlock/Cleric Overlap. Maybe make Warlock a subclass of Cleric. Ive played a couple of different games where Warlocks were fundamentally no different from Clerics in the sense of power source, ethos, or purpose, but only differed in terms of spell access.

All I can say to that is if "contract enforced by prescribed punishments, which doles out wages or earnings" is equivalent to "devotional service to a deity," something is deeply wrong with the faiths of that world. Faith arising through getting requested presents is no faith at all.


I have no opinion of the Sorcerer, but think Wild Mage belongs in Wizard. Dragon based Sorcerer, if anything, reads like a Racial Template with spells to me.

Not....really sure why you'd think that about wild mage? Like you've expressed it as though the link should be self-evident and I literally don't see any link at all.

"Racial template" is 3e language, it really doesn't have a place in 5e. More importantly, moving away from making you "pay for" your class fantasy, or waiting any longer than 3rd level to get to it, is a core element of 5e design philosophy. I don't see how you can silo off sorcerer bloodlines into such a thing without fundamentally ceasing to be and do what 5e is and does.

[Amdy_vill]

the answer is yes and no. it all depends on what your ideas of class theming are. if you think classes should have hard themes and RP connections and not mechanics then yes. if you think classes should be defined by mechanics the no. it's a matter of design philosophy. personally, I like theming more than mechanics but that's me. thou I personally think sorcerer should be their own class. Clerics, paladins, and warlocks could all be compressed into one class. I could see a 6e following this idea looking like

Preist(Warlock, Cleric, Paladin)
Druid(Druid. Ranger, and some Barbarin ideas)
Wizard(Artificers, Bards, and wizards)
Fighter(Fighter, Rogue, and some Ranger/barbarian ideas)
Monk(Monks and some Rogue/fighter ideas)
Sorcerer(Blood magic like sorcerers and maybe even blood hunter)

[Gyor]

No, it would not be better. On the one hand, do you really want the "coffeelock" to be a default option? On the other, does it really make sense that power-through-contract and power-through-bloodline be represented by a single thing?

(And don't even get me started on Warlocks being different from Clerics...I swear, it's like people don't even realize what faith IS anymore...)

A lot of D&D players are Atheists so they tend to be clueless on the RP and Lore of Clerics and similar classes, because they don't really understand the class, it's just the party healer to them.

[Millstone85]

And don't even get me started on Warlocks being different from Clerics...I swear, it's like people don't even realize what faith IS anymore...
A lot of D&D players are Atheists so they tend to be clueless on the RP and Lore of Clerics and similar classes, because they don't really understand the class, it's just the party healer to them.I am an atheist myself (with a lowercase "a"; I don't worship the goddess Athe) and I found it really annoying how everyone at the table kept referring to my warlock's patron as her god.

I suppose it didn't help that my warlock didn't have a patron deity to contrast her otherworldly patron with. I thought about changing that, but what deity of the Realms would be okay with my character having a foot in the Far Realm? The likes of Dendar or Ghaunadaur, yes, but only if they were the ones providing the pact magic in the first place.

And I suppose my new character (first session this month, hopefully) will keep everyone confused on the difference between arcane and divine magic, on account of being a divine-soul sorcerer. But at least this time, yes, there will be religious devotion to a deity.

[JackPhoenix]

All I can say to that is if "contract enforced by prescribed punishments, which doles out wages or earnings" is equivalent to "devotional service to a deity," something is deeply wrong with the faiths of that world. Faith arising through getting requested presents is no faith at all.

That's the thing: unless you're playing in Eberron, no faith is needed. Being called gods exist, that's undeniable fact... you can pay them a visit with proper spell, if you want. And they do grant spells to people who worship them hard enough, or just at their whim. Especially in Forgotten Realms, where the anuses show up every few years to cause trouble, and to get their butts or other pieces of anatomy inevitably kicked for it.

[Naanomi]

That's the thing: unless you're playing in Eberron, no faith is needed. Being called gods exist, that's undeniable fact... you can pay them a visit with proper spell, if you want. And they do grant spells to people who worship them hard enough, or just at their whim. Especially in Forgotten Realms, where the anuses show up every few years to cause trouble, and to get their butts or other pieces of anatomy inevitably kicked for it.
To be fair, faith is needed because those beings wouldn’t *be* Gods if they were not worshiped in the Great Wheel Cosmology

[Witty Username]

To be fair, faith is needed because those beings wouldn’t *be* Gods if they were not worshiped in the Great Wheel Cosmology


That's the thing: unless you're playing in Eberron, no faith is needed. Being called gods exist, that's undeniable fact... you can pay them a visit with proper spell, if you want. And they do grant spells to people who worship them hard enough, or just at their whim. Especially in Forgotten Realms, where the anuses show up every few years to cause trouble, and to get their butts or other pieces of anatomy inevitably kicked for it.


A lot of D&D players are Atheists so they tend to be clueless on the RP and Lore of Clerics and similar classes, because they don't really understand the class, it's just the party healer to them.

Um ok, we doing this now?

We got to keep our faiths straight
complete trust or confidence in someone or something. - required for D&D gods
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. - Not required for D&D gods
That doesn't mean you can't have both in d&d game though. It just means you may need to play up things, like your characters impression of a god being different then the reality or based on their church doctrine rather than divine intervention. Or have gods actively lie, cheat, steal, etc.
I think gods like Auril, Bane and Cyric work well for that idea. Or you could have a crisis down the road serving Kelemvor if your character is unaware of his changing opinions on how to properly manage the realm of the dead. Or they could line up, maybe you serve the church of Tymora or Lathander, you end up with an impression, nay sayers shake your devotion, so you try to contact your god in some way and end up realizing you were right and the haters were wrong.

Personally, I have on my bucket list roleplaying a priest of bane that maintained their devotion to Bane from Bane's death to his resurrection without changing deity because s/he truly believed "Serve none but Bane"

[Naanomi]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that a cleric had to have faith in a God per se, just that *someone* (lots of someones) did out there somewhere or they wouldn’t be a God in the first place. The Great Wheel works on a ‘Gods need prayers badly’ system for the most part

[JackPhoenix]

Um ok, we doing this now?

We got to keep our faiths straight
complete trust or confidence in someone or something. - required for D&D gods
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. - Not required for D&D gods
That doesn't mean you can't have both in d&d game though. It just means you may need to play up things, like your characters impression of a god being different then the reality or based on their church doctrine rather than divine intervention. Or have gods actively lie, cheat, steal, etc.
I think gods like Auril, Bane and Cyric work well for that idea. Or you could have a crisis down the road serving Kelemvor if your character is unaware of his changing opinions on how to properly manage the realm of the dead. Or they could line up, maybe you serve the church of Tymora or Lathander, you end up with an impression, nay sayers shake your devotion, so you try to contact your god in some way and end up realizing you were right and the haters were wrong.

Personally, I have on my bucket list roleplaying a priest of bane that maintained their devotion to Bane from Bane's death to his resurrection without changing deity because s/he truly believed "Serve none but Bane"

Or you may not have any faith at all, and still be a cleric, because the god decided to pick you for whatever reason: "Once you've chosen a deity, consider your cleric's relationship to that god, Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or you may not have any faith at all, and still be a cleric, because the god decided to pick you for whatever reason: "Once you've chosen a deity, consider your cleric's relationship to that god, Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes?"

Lack of choice is not lack of faith. You could be very faithful, but totally not interested in being a direct agent out there on the road bashing skulls.

I'd say that faith is a prerequisite, but not a sufficient one. You have to have faith to have that connection and channel the gods power, but not all that have faith have power. You must also be chosen.

This is the inverse of a warlock, who get power (generally) by choosing it, and who don't need any faith, belief, or even knowledge.

[ezekielraiden]

Or you may not have any faith at all, and still be a cleric, because the god decided to pick you for whatever reason: "Once you've chosen a deity, consider your cleric's relationship to that god, Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes?"

No. You must have faith to be a cleric. But that faith doesn't have to be faith in a deity (so, I admit, my word choice was poor before, as I went for the 95%+ "clerics that worship a divine being specifically" rather than the absolutely universal "clerics have faith in something").

Devotion to a ~numinous something~ is vital to all properly "divine" classes in 5e: druids, clerics, and paladins. For Druids, it's devotion to nature. For clerics, it's devotion to whatever their faith is. For Paladins, it's devotion to a code of honor (often, but not always, one connected to a faith; hence the oath of the crown, which could be a truly non-faith-expressing character).

A Cleric must genuinely hold as sacred whatever their domain is about, in some way, shape, or form. That's faith. It doesn't need to be organized theistic religion. It could be like the "cleric of a philosophy" from 3e. It could be purely self-directed faith, belief in one's own potential and power, like the Godsmen from Planescape. It could be like Buddhism, where the existence or non-existence of deific figures is unimportant, and walking The Path is what is important. It could be like a Tengriist who upholds a certain ideal or concept as paramount: not revering a being, but each being that rules over wherever the cleric is located and is related to that ideal or concept.

But it must, at rock bottom, be about faith. Holding something, or someone, as transcendental and sacred, worthy of dedication and service.

[Tanarii]

By default, PHB clerics have a deity and have intense devotion and awareness of their deities wishes. The philosophy thing is a suggested DMG alternative.

A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes

But yeah, there's also plenty to indicate they might not seek to become a cleric, but rather were chosen.


The Great Wheel works on a ‘Gods need prayers badly’ system for the most partIs that explicit in the 5e lore? I haven't dug in as much as you, but I know you also know a lot about pre-5e lore and sometimes reference it. So looking for clarification on which it is in this case. :smallwink:

[Millstone85]

The Great Wheel works on a ‘Gods need prayers badly’ system for the most part
Is that explicit in the 5e lore?Only thing I can think of is the DMG's definition of a vestige:
Vestiges are deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers and are considered dead, from a mortal perspective. Esoteric rituals can sometimes contact these beings and draw on their latent power.

On a similar note:
The power of a philosophy stems from the belief that mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person.

[arishardin]

No, because what makes D&D so great and set apart from all other games is the amount of choices.
Why would you reduce three of those choices into one?

[Aimeryan]

Not read all the pages.

What if you combined Sorcerers and Warlocks as such?:

Access to all Arcane spells that do not require Concentration, with no Known/Prepared mechanic.
Innate Magic (instead of Spellcasting feature): Spell Points of the amount equivalent to Warlock Spell Slots + 1/Level, recharged on Short Rest.
Metamagic uses Spell Points.
Invocations (Flairs? Talents? Knacks? Innates?) based of innate magical source Subclass (Draconic, Demonic, Divine, Wild, etc.), and spread more evenly accross levels with progressively more powerful choices.
Eldritch Blast as a class ability powering up with level (like Sneak Attack does for Rogues).
Other (sub)class features acquired with level would need some thinking about.


In many ways, it would be pretty similar to how Sorlocks (2/3 Warlock, X Sorcerer) are now - but without the multiclassing required. Such Sorlocks already have access to basically everything of note for both Sorcerers and Warlocks (due to the frontloading on Warlocks), so combining the two shouldn't be a balance concern - and you still have Wizards.

A balance point here would be the loss of Concentration spells vs the Spell Points variant (and with slightly greater amount of it, although some of that is coming from obsolete Sorcerer Points). Concentration spells are generally more powerful than non-Concentration spells (sometimes by a lot), however, the greater flexibility of Spell Points would allow for more efficient spell/Metamagic use - for example, a greater number of the highest level spells available. The Short Rest recharge mitigates complete nova potential, while Eldritch Blast would still remain a backup.

What would mostly change is the feel of the class - the lack of Concentration spells and rigid Spell Slots would make them feel less of a studied caster, while the otherwise unfettered access to Arcane spells would make them feel more impulsive and free. The Invocations(Flairs?) being tied more to Subclass and level, with progression, would make the choices after the first one or two matter a lot more and feel better to acquire.

Multiclassing into the class would be far less frontloaded (no more Agonising Blast with just two levels!), while multiclass out of the class would be interesting - maybe pick up some low level Concentration spells from Bard or Paladin since you are not using it.